whiteflame

>Reported Vote: Isabella // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: con
>Reason for Decision: too-vague
>Reason for Mod Action:
Votes must include specific analysis of arguments presented by both sides. Saying that one side's points were "well written" or "explained" is not sufficient since it doesn't analyze the content of either side's arguments - even points that are better written or explained may not be the strongest in the debate.

---Isabella's former vote---
Voted for: con
The argument was well written and explained compared to the other one.

Going to have to get caught up on reading this one soon!

All good, I know they’ll be your arguments. Don’t have a problem with you drawing sources from AI, but I appreciate the disclosure.

Damn, that preview feature for these posts looks very different from the end result. Sorry about the spacing on this one.

I've got thoughts on how this resolution balances that I can discuss later, but suffice it to say that similar resolutions are common in LD debate, and I think in part that's because it has so much good ground for both sides.

Interesting, look forward to this one.

Nice, one of my topics. Yes, it's science and no, I'm not apologizing.

Ooh, definitely watching this one.

Honestly don't care about the elo here, so that's not an issue. I do appreciate you voting.

Thanks for voting!

Can't say I agree with that framing, but I don't really have anything else to add that wouldn't be getting further into the same arguments I made in the debate or just mentioning what Con didn't address, so I'll stop here. I appreciate the vote despite my disagreements.

I guess my fundamental disagreement is that I don't think Con actually challenged my framework in DP1, so the idea that my "framework turned against itself" doesn't make sense to me. You can argue as you did in your RFD that he challenged how well including more people voting through mandatory voting actually increases representation, but I wouldn't argue that that turned my framework. I guess on this front, we just have very different views of what a turn looks like, because I don't see it.

Speaking generally, it does feel like your RFD is evaluating things on a different framework than the one I presented, or at least evaluating Con's arguments on a framework he only suggested. Maybe that's just because I don't see him turning my framework in the same way that you do, though I think that has more to do with your discussion of self-interests as an impact, since it doesn't factor into my framework or any other that I can see in the debate. It's a valid point for the topic, but not one that I feel was given solid relative weight to democratic legitimacy.

Regardless, I accept your vote and I do appreciate it. Maybe you’re seeing more of an implied framework or applying a greater BoP to my side, which I could understand to some degree despite the way the debate was setup.

My issue in part is that you keep talking about a harm to the interest of all these people who are forced to vote without a mechanism to weigh that harm. I presented democratic legitimacy as my framework and weighed everything on that framework. I didn’t see an alternative framework that we could use to weigh individual interests, and though I agree that would have worked in Con’s favor, you’re essentially just penalizing me for not weighing democratic legitimacy against a phantom framework. If you saw something to that effect that I missed, I’m happy to be wrong here.

I thought I was pretty clear that mandatory voting is the only guaranteed means of getting a sufficient increase in voters to achieve democratic legitimacy, so I don’t really get how I fell short showing an exclusive benefit. Again, seems like you want me to argue against a point I didn’t have on the flow to argue against. Pointing to two planks of my model that I thought could be non-exclusive doesn’t really cut it when my impacts were all based on the remainder.

I get your perspective on a lot of these points and even the problems that Con presented, especially in R3, but I don’t see the arguments on the flow from R1 that you wanted me to address and it seems like the main issues you take with my case are ones of personal liberty that my opponent should have brought up and established as more important than or a different framing of democratic legitimacy. I recognize those points are powerful, but not that I had to argue against them before they appeared on the flow.

I’ll need to sit down with them later and consider it, but the ones that don’t make sense to me are the statements that my arguments weren’t weighted for what we lose (the lack of numbers just isn’t accurate from where I’m sitting), and the point about how it’s possible to solve for issues with lack of voting in a voluntary system without any clarity on the “how” from Con. I get that it can happen to some extent, but it feels like you’re essentially calling the entire increase in voter number nonunique because it’s possible rather than because of any specific points Con made. I don’t get how uncontested points I made only show potential for improvement. I also don’t really get how my framework is turned against itself.

I get that much. I don’t get your evaluation of a lot of my points when considering that definition.

Wouldn’t want you to punish the forfeit anyway. There are just elements of how you’re evaluating the debate that I’m not fully getting.

I’m honestly a little lost on your vote in several places, but I appreciate your taking the time to do so.

Thanks for voting!

GUIDING PRINCIPLE

I think it's always useful to just clarify from the start what you think is the most important issue in the debate and why. You can always continue to work on a variety of points that aren't that, but you want some point or set of points that you feel is your wheelhouse that you can always point back to. Otherwise, it just becomes who won the most points, which is always going to be iffy.

GMO DEFINITION

I don't think you have to challenge that there's functionally little difference between GMO and cross breeding. I think Kohai inadvertently gave you an opportunity with this one. There are actually good breeding programs out there that could substitute for genetic engineering, just on a longer time scale. And what you lose in time, you gain in adoption. You recognized that GMO crops are outright banned in many countries. They're not beneficial in those places if they're banned. Kohai could always have argued that that's an issue of legislation and not with the GMOs themselves, but you can't really engage with GMOs independent of their perception. You could always go to the mat on the differences (GMOs are targeted and cross breeding involves a lot more genes and a lot more randomness), but the definition's a given in this debate. If Kohai wants to treat them as similar, use it.

GMO HEALTHINESS

You don't have to hit back on Kohai's examples, specifically. He outright admitted that Golden Rice is barely in circulation and it's unclear what the oil change in the soybeans has changed for the better. It's a decent point, but largely theoretical in terms of active benefit to given populations. You could argue that the efforts to do so require massive roll-outs in countries that will become dependent upon those GMO crops, which may make them dependent on single companies to ensure an entire population's health, which can lead to its own problems of economic control. It also doesn't solve for the lack of diversity in their diet, it's just a stopgap to address a deficit that countries may see no incentive to fill with these crops on the table.

PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES

It was definitely important to make the distinction. Pesticides are a big win for GMO foods and that's pretty much a given. They are just far more targeted than a spray, which is the only real alternative in most places. You can argue that it generates resistance in pests, but no more so than the sprays necessarily. Herbicides are a huge loss for GMO foods. I know Kohai tried to sell carbon sequestration in soils as a benefit, but herbicide overuse is basically a given. That breeds herbicide resistant weeds, which mean they have to spray with more herbicides, creating a cycle that's ever escalating.

SUICIDE RATES

The way I read this point was that GMO crops have made farmers more stable economically, which decreases their likelihood of pursuing suicide. I get how that's what you'd take away from it, but it looked like a pretty serious point. You could have argued that farmers are only better off perceptually or that this is just a short-term benefit that's going to go away over time. I could see how you'd get to either one, and I think you're on the right track for how companies can overwhelm small businesses. There are lots of tactics they use to bleed farmers dry, would've been worth exploring that a bit.

Yup, I'll get on this soon enough.

So I’m fine making this a 2-round debate if you are, just treat the last round as my final. That work for you?

<p>>Reported Vote: Ultracrepidarian // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric</p>
<p>>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>The voter has to provide some specific analysis of each sides' points. That includes saying how Pro establishes their arguments as true, and what Con actually does argue, even if they believe it's insufficient to net them the debate. </p>

<p>---Ultracrepidarian's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>Pro establishes that it is immoral for a group to be discriminated against without sufficient justification. Con is not able to provide this justification. Pro wins this debate. </p>

I'll see what I can do about getting a vote up on this one, might be a bit.

Solid topic, lot of fertile ground here.

This should be interesting, haven't debated the topic before but I've thought about it a good deal.

Thanks for voting, and appreciate the expansion as well.

Thanks for the vote!